【草莓酱拌饭组】1ARGUMENT7 by Amilia

zhangmiaoamiliaUID: 2574254

In this argument, the author concludes that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green for the reason that he will certainly settle down the environmental problems in Clearview. To support the conclusion, the arguer point out that air pollution levels has increased due to the booming of factories. Besides, the arguer assumes that the growing patients with the respiratory illness fully shows that the doubled number of factory contribute to the unsatisfying health condition of the residents. However, the hashing conclusion which is not logically sounded may mislead the voters and causing unpredictable consequences in the near future.

First of all, the arguer offers us a couple of data to convince us the fact that the current members are not protecting our environment. It may seem reasonable at first glance that the doubled factories in Clearview
account for the increasing air pollution levels and 25 patients with respiratory illness. Nevertheless, after a thoughtful analysis, the flaws emerge out, which undermine the strength of the argument to a great extent. Whether the increasing level of air pollution is the fault of the doubled factories is worth to reconsider. If there are four factories before, then the current number of factory might not the cause of it. Furthermore, as the technology and science developing, the harm to the bio-environment can be decreased dramatically with the help of pragmatic innovations. Finally and most importantly, the increasing air pollution levels and more patients cannot prove that the current members haven’t done a good job. The present leader may take some active measures for protecting our environment, and it takes time to reach the desirable effect. It is similar to take medicine. No one can expect to get fully recover from the illness immediately after taking the pills. One need time to fight against the virus with the help of medicine and if he wants back to normal, he has to rest for another few weeks to be energetic again. Likewise, the damaged ecosystem needs time to be in better conditions. It is sensible to rate the parameter within a period of time with more reference standards, not only air levels and the number of patients.

Secondly, even if admitted that the current members are failing of protecting our environment, there is no solid evidence showing that Ann Green will surly solve the problems and the environmental issues really matters for the time being. Why Ann Green, which, I believe, is the common question for the most readers. Is he more experienced at handling environmental issues and have the ability to manage the Clearview? Is there any other candidate who is equally or more capable than Ann Green? Considerable evidence need to offer for the vote for him.

In conclusion, the arguer failed to prove the inability and inefficient of the current environmental policy and current members in Clearview. Besides, given that no absolute evidence can prove Ann Green will do a better job, the votes for him need reconsidering.

deeper99UID: 2606523

之前在宿舍一直由于验证码错误说不成话，现在回家了终于可以发表意见啦！
第一次改文章，还请多多包涵啊！以下是小的看法：
1.zhangmiaoamilia的第二段意在反驳Clearview的市委成员没有保护好环境，如果在这之前能够分析

一下文章中关于Clearview环境问题恶化的描述所存在的漏洞就更好了。

2.第三段通过作出让步然后再驳斥的手法很高明，可以更好的体现作者的思想深度，也让文章更有说

服力。

3.如果可以把文章的关联词更多样化一些就能把文章显得更好了。

霁月难逢UID: 2718354

小组之间的互改要多用用心的哦

可以看看以前的前辈们是怎么改作文的